|
Jarmak posted:No, it's not a myth, generally almost every ethnic group that migrated to the United States was otherized as "not white" during a period of nativist pushback. Hell Ben Franklin even famously wrote about which Germans counted as "white people" during the German immigration wave in colonial days. In the beginning of the 20th century Slavs, Jews, Italians, and Irish all got this treatment to varying degrees and timelines. The ignorance is astonishing! Read some Nell Painter! Whiteness is conditional and always has been. People learned how race and ethnicity work from a deeply racist society and never asked themselves “how did I learn this stuff?” And walk around thinking it’s just a solved problem or common sense or whatever.
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 19:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:46 |
|
|
A lot of them were also just not white.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 20:00
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:Why would I get mad at myself? I didn't make you invent that analogy. Its not at all hard to see what people have said in a thread: tagesschau posted:Is there actually any sort of mechanism that stops the unions from voting down the deal and then ignoring any back-to-work legislation? You're in the United States Current Events thread saying a situation "here in Ontario" is similar enough to be comparible. I continue to contend, without needing to disavow what I said before, that the operation of rolling stock in america is sufficiently different from the operation of your local Canadian school system that coercion by force and force directly applied to labor actions can be seen as a credible enough threat to keep the nationally‐critical rail operations running.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 20:02
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:No, it's not a myth, generally almost every ethnic group that migrated to the United States was otherized as "not white" during a period of nativist pushback. Hell Ben Franklin even famously wrote about which Germans counted as "white people" during the German immigration wave in colonial days. In the beginning of the 20th century Slavs, Jews, Italians, and Irish all got this treatment to varying degrees and timelines. Discrimination within white ethnic groups certainly did happen along with nativist sentiment, but they were never considered "non-white" but rather not considered "good white", ie the in-group. That's why these distinctions eventually disappeared as time went on, while the discrimination against actual nonwhites never stopped and was never the same. Marrying an Italian was still going to not get you disowned as much as it was marrying a black man/woman and the darker the skin of the Italian the worse the discrimination was, because it was distancing from "whiteness". quote:edit: equating it to African slavery or the legacy of institutionalized racism is where this completely breaks down, not that it didn't happen at all. Irish slavery is an explicitly white supremacist myth. Irish were never enslaved in the US. That is not to say that indentured servitude wasn't awful to many.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 20:03
|
|
|
selec posted:The ignorance is astonishing! Read some Nell Painter! Whiteness is conditional and always has been. Whiteness being conditional is exactly what I'm saying and I'm not sure you think from Nell Painter contradicts what I said. I was talking about police treatment and if you're talking about getting the poo poo beat out of you by police being an "inferior white" was enough to put you in that category in a way that being a rural white in 2022 does not. The mid-20th century change in the way whiteness is conceptualized doesn't change that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 20:03
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Discrimination within white ethnic groups certainly did happen along with nativist sentiment, but they were never considered "non-white" but rather not considered "good white", ie the in-group. They were absolutely considered "non-white" but the conceptualization of what we consider white vs non-white has changed quite a bit since then. I'm not sure why you're telling me Irish slavery is a myth a second time when I explicitly listed that as the part that was a myth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 20:06
|
|
|
Gerund posted:Its not at all hard to see what people have said in a thread: I think it could be a useful thing to consider in the context that you're looking at how a modern, neoliberal financialized state would react to a strike wherein scabs or money printing isn't going to solve it, but I personally think it should be kept at a distance because rail is a good deal more critical than education in the sense that in downstream effects and immediacy, and even then there's no shortage of stateside teacher strikes to compare it to, though it's hard to say what would be better since the most recent ones here were primarily state level affairs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 20:09
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:They were absolutely considered "non-white" but the conceptualization of what we consider white vs non-white has changed quite a bit since then. They were always considered white and the treatment of them was never on the same level as actually non-white people. What you are actually talking about is whether or not they were considered part of the societally protected white class.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 20:12
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:They were always considered white and the treatment of them was never on the same level as actually non-white people. Whiteness is an ideological construct that has changed over time and If you asked someone from 1890 they would likely use the term "white" in the same way you're using "societally protected white class". I don't really disagree with the substance of what you're saying though so I'm not going to continue arguing over it. The part that was material to my comment was the workers getting the gently caress beat out of them in the early 20th century were not considered part of the socially protected white class in the way 21st century railway workers are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 20:19
|
|
|
In an attempt to move the subject back to the railway and away from the whiteness argument, the House just passed both bills - the one requiring workers to accept the tentative agreement, and the other one which adds 7 sick days to the agreement. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/11/29/23484623/congress-rail-strike-biden-sick-days I honestly am pleasantly surprised that the second bill passed, albeit with a much smaller margin. Now they move to the Senate to be voted on, so hopefully both pass there as well. quote:At Biden’s request, the House of Representatives took action on Wednesday, passing two resolutions. The first resolution, which passed 290-137, would require workers to accept the tentative agreement the Biden administration negotiated in September.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 20:28
|
|
|
Sick leave’s going to get filibustered, no?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 20:29
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:I think it could be a useful thing to consider in the context that you're looking at how a modern, neoliberal financialized state would react to a strike wherein scabs or money printing isn't going to solve it, but I personally think it should be kept at a distance because rail is a good deal more critical than education in the sense that in downstream effects and immediacy, and even then there's no shortage of stateside teacher strikes to compare it to, though it's hard to say what would be better since the most recent ones here were primarily state level affairs. I think that the existential, necessary-for-the-functioning-of-the-nation work of rail is a place where coercive force will be applied, no matter how rotten the imperial core can be called. Wishcasting a bloodless and painless worker's coup by going tools down on drinking water because scab teachers in Ontario- or West Virginia- cannot be asked to teach only the thirty or fifty most important children is not a realistic presentation of the situation. The president and the lame-duck congress is establishing the terms in which said force can (or will) be applied, and I think its not goingt to get any better by the election two years from now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 20:30
|
|
|
Gasoline supplies across the country basically poo poo the bed in the event of a nationwide railroad strike. I don’t see anyone talking about an immediate issue with rail delays that will affect basically everyone. Ethanol is distributed across the country via rail car. Most of the gasoline in the country is kept in large fuel terminals and blended with 10% ethanol at the time it goes into the 8500 gallon tanker [truck] to take to the gas station. Without that ethanol, the gasoline will not meet octane requirements to avoid knocking and also is against many state and federal laws to sell because of that and other specification issues (note: we can handwave away air quality but not engine knocking). The pipelines from refineries are scheduled a month in advance and refineries stock octane boosters to meet expected demand and not really anything more so ethanol at the final terminal is essential. By the way, those boosters are also delivered by rail. Local ethanol supplies are constantly restocked because most terminals have much smaller ethanol tanks than sub-octane gasoline tanks and they are refilled as fast as possible via their limited number of ethanol offloading spots either directly from rail or from trucks that get them from nearby rail cars. Full octane gasoline without ethanol is basically a hobby fuel at this point and not readily available in most areas, and even if available not in a significant quantity for major metropolitan areas. The railroads are imperiling our national security because shutting down pipelines because of ethanol issues downstream stops jet fuel being delivered to airports and military bases. They should not have been allowed to abuse workers and get us into this situation. Edit: ethanol goes so quick at the local level there will be outages within a few days at most. Edit2: oh yeah Diesel exhaust fluid is probably also transported via rail. Your diesel engine will shut itself down if it can’t regenerate. RIP trucking ethanol from ports if you can’t even run the trucks because of lack of DEF. You can’t truck food either on trucks that are dead on the side of the highway. Biden’s name will be cursed for generations by both aisles. Edit3: forgot about refineries needing to ship out residual oils from the refining process before their own storage tanks get full. The whole thing would be turbofucked. Shutting down refineries would start to happen right before a strike because it can damage them if it’s forced after a strike starts. They will reduce risk by doing controlled shutdowns at the last possible moment. Mizaq fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Nov 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 20:32
|
|
|
Gerund posted:Its not at all hard to see what people have said in a thread: I know, and thank you for confirming that the analogy you invented is absent in my quote, even though you failed to bold the actual salient point, which is—yet again—that a threat to fire striking workers is utterly toothless in a labor market that is incapable of providing replacements. The same goes for anything else that causes any of them not to be on the job, like inducing them to quit or injuring or killing them. This appears hard for you to understand, but a rail worker who has quit their job, or who has been rendered incapable of performing it, will not be moving any trains, no matter how much Congress stamps its feet. Gerund posted:You're in the United States Current Events thread saying a situation "here in Ontario" is similar enough to be comparible. Is there something about the United States, uniquely in the world, that allows workers with specialized skills and training to be replaced on a whim, thereby denying them leverage in labor negotiations? That would be required for the situation to be dissimilar.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 20:38
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Just to be clear because there's a lot of hyperbolic language being used, "siding with the railroad" in this instance is enforcing a compromise agreement that gives the unions most of what they asked for and most of the unions (but representing only ~40% of the workforce) approved. Aren't you just lying through your teeth here? All the unions have supported a strike if any of the unions are supporting the strike. Since the deal wasn't accepted this means that 100% of the union opposes the deal. There's no fractions or percentages here, this is literally how collective bargaining works.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 20:54
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:Sick leave’s going to get filibustered, no? They both need 60* votes. However, Bernie says that he will delay the whole thing past the strike if his amendment doesn't get at least past cloture. * (The star shortcuts past the need to constantly add in "or 50+1 to change the filibuster rules". I'm just gonna write 60* from now on for this sort of thing, unless the goal is actually to change the filibuster like with HR1. In this case, they are just whipping 60 votes) Rigel fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Nov 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 21:04
|
|
|
ArbitraryC posted:Aren't you just lying through your teeth here? All the unions have supported a strike if any of the unions are supporting the strike. Since the deal wasn't accepted this means that 100% of the union opposes the deal. There's no fractions or percentages here, this is literally how collective bargaining works. You're talking past each other: Jarmak's point is that the contract Biden is trying to force was negotiated between management and union reps, and that a large minority of union members voted for it. The overall point is that it isn't a completely one sided agreement. The fact that some unions voted against it means that it isn't good enough, and even the unions that voted for it will (rightly) strike if others do, so the votes for it only matter to insomuch as they demonstrate some level of acceptance of the agreement from the membership. Maybe be careful calling people liars, since you may be misreading their point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 21:16
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:You're talking past each other: Jarmak's point is that the contract Biden is trying to force was negotiated between management and union reps, and that a large minority of union members voted for it. The overall point is that it isn't a completely one sided agreement. It seems to me like Jarmak is trying to misrepresent the union's stance on this. The union is being sold out by the administration because the union did not accept the deal and wanted to strike, it's literally as simple as that. 40% do not approve of the deal, 0% do, hence the impending strike. At most you could say 40% were willing to compromise if everyone else agreed, but "willing to compromise if everyone else agrees" is a far cry from "approve". The framing is important, because it's this exact kind of disingenuous weasel wording that is going to be used to try to quell public outrage and solidarity among workers. e: Like it feels tautological to me that no percentage of the unions has approved of the deal, because if they did the union would fracture and they wouldn't all be threatening to strike together. There is an inherent "if" in the vote, "we vote to accept this deal IF everyone accepts the deal". Trying to frame it like the 60% is overriding the 40% is being dishonest because the 40% voted that way with the explicit caveat that they only accepted the deal IF everyone else did. That's incredibly important context and it's willfully manipulative to leave it out. I believe the unions involved have even stated that they'd strike if even 1 rejected, so it literally wouldn't even matter if it was 90/10 in favor because they're only in favor IF everyone is in favor. There's a conditional that's part of the vote (and likely has an influence on the vote itself) you can't just ignore it. ArbitraryC fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Nov 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 21:34
|
|
|
ArbitraryC posted:The union is being sold out by the administration because the union did not accept the deal and wanted to strike, it's literally as simple as that. No disagreement from me on any of this. ArbitraryC posted:40% do not approve of the deal, 0% do, hence the impending strike. That's the sticking point. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/11/21/business/railroad-unions-votes/index.html posted:The deals nearly got the support they needed to be ratified by both unions. One was ratified by the engineers, with 53.5% voting yes, while the other was a very slim defeat by the conductors with either a small majority or a near majority voting for ratification. A large chunk of the union membership *did* support it, which is why you're seeing people object to it being characterized as a completely one sided deal. ArbitraryC posted:At most you could say 40% were willing to compromise if everyone else agreed, but "willing to compromise if everyone else agrees" is a far cry from "approve". The framing is important, because it's this exact kind of disingenuous weasel wording that is going to be used to try to quell public outrage and solidarity among workers. I agree with you that the framing is important. Which is why people pounding the table about how striking workers are going to be shot, and saying "100% of the union opposes the deal" when neither is true, it costs credibility. If you want people on your side (which is the right side!!!) it's important to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 22:01
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:No disagreement from me on any of this. I feel like I address this in my edit. ArbitraryC posted:e: Like it feels tautological to me that no percentage of the unions has approved of the deal, because if they did the union would fracture and they wouldn't all be threatening to strike together. There is an inherent "if" in the vote, "we vote to accept this deal IF everyone accepts the deal". Trying to frame it like the 60% is overriding the 40% is being dishonest because the 40% voted that way with the explicit caveat that they only accepted the deal IF everyone else did. That's incredibly important context and it's willfully manipulative to leave it out. I believe the unions involved have even stated that they'd strike if even 1 rejected, so it literally wouldn't even matter if it was 90/10 in favor because they're only in favor IF everyone is in favor. There's a conditional that's part of the vote (and likely has an influence on the vote itself) you can't just ignore it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 22:04
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:No disagreement from me on any of this. But saying that a large chunk of union membership supported it IS the lie. Every single yes vote was contingent on every union voting yes. No one voted for ratifying the contract, they voted for ratifying the contract, if, and only if, every single union voted yes. Since that didn't happen, the stance of every single union is no contract. Every single union does oppose the deal, that's why we are heading towards a strike. This is how collective bargaining works in this case, saying otherwise is pushing a false narrative meant to support Congress betraying the unions and unilaterally enforcing a contract that they voted down.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 22:07
|
|
|
"It got a large minority of support/most rejected it but it's all very complicated so don't go building any houses on that foundation" seems to sum it up in my mind, it's how a lot of direct democracy and big huge things like this take shape. Everybody whose input matters on this seems to be fixated on "strike happen? y/n" so that's how I've been trying to look at things to understand just what the hell anybody is thinking in handling it like this
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 22:12
|
|
|
It wouldn't be the first time bosses try to divide and conquer unions by giving some workers a better deal than others. Portraying it as an unquestioned poo poo sandwich for all weakens the effort tor recognize and combat that tactic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 22:12
|
|
|
The house committee has Trump's tax returns now https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/30/politics/house-ways-and-means-committee-now-has-donald-trumps-federal-tax-returns/index.html That was surprisingly fast after the supreme court declined to block them. Can the committee do anything meaningful with them before they get dissolved by the new Republican led house?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 22:13
|
|
|
A large minority isn't a thing. A majority of the workers rejected the contract but that majority is split between 4 unions while 8 unions who represent a minority of the workers accepted them but will still be striking we part of their agreements with the 4 who rejected it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 22:14
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:The house committee has Trump's tax returns now Yes , they can publicly release them. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 22:17
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:The house committee has Trump's tax returns now Leak them to a bunch of people probably, I think the bigger deal would be if those also get into the hands of state level prosecutors going after him but I don't know if that's impossible or already happened. If the House was going to do something to him they would've by now but a state prosecutor can get him for missed taxes or something. Gumball Gumption posted:A large minority isn't a thing. A majority of the workers rejected the contract but that majority is split between 4 unions while 8 unions who represent a minority of the workers accepted them but will still be striking we part of their agreements with the 4 who rejected it. Sure it is, and if it's a majority or not depends on how you're looking at it even so it isn't even consistent. It just means there's a bunch of people whose opinion on the vote is opposed in some way to the larger amount. As someone who despises multiple choice questions because I overthink prompts until they're vague it's a much friendlier way to view voting. More strategically it means you won but you can't just bulldoze the losers, that a win doesn't mean anything ends, or both. Our entire democracy as it were is in fact set up to enshrine and empower a large minority.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 22:21
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:More strategically it means you won but you can't just bulldoze the losers, that a win doesn't mean anything ends, or both. Our entire democracy as it were is in fact set up to enshrine and empower a large minority. That might be how democracy is set up, but that's not how the union negotiation is set up, so how democracy is set up is irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 22:32
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:You're talking past each other: Amazing how much of politics is just this. Additionally amazing how much of politics is just the Leftwing having extended debates (often over minutiae) with itself, while the entire Rightwing aren't even remotely engaged in these kinds of discussions in any way, and basically just sit around cosplaying Bond villains. Reminds me of that moment a few years back when everyone realized that we get a lot of deep dive think pieces into the minds of rural Conservative/Trump voters and the MSM trying to deconstruct the motivations of coal miners in fly over states but you rarely see RWM doing a mirror version of any of that. I remember someone (maybe a goon) describing it best as something like, "[Conservatives] seek no new insights", or something along those lines that really kind of speaks to the fundamental differences in the way the two groups perceive the world. -Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Nov 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 22:33
|
|
|
When I brought it up originally, it was just to highlight that it was a deal negotiated between employers and union leaders, and that it was acceptable to a substantial portion of the union workers. This is important because people were acting like this deal gives the employers everything they want, and that's not true. A deal that gives the employers everything they want would be "we're tossing out all the concessions the employers made and imposing the current status quo as a new contract". That's not what this is. This is a deal that has significant concessions from the employers, and it's one that was acceptable to many workers (i.e., it's not an intolerably bullshit deal the employers offered only to give the appearance that they were pretending to negotiate). It's missing certain specific concessions that the workers want, but it's not "the employers get everything they want and the workers get nothing".
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 22:41
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:Reminds me of that moment a few years back when everyone realized that we get a lot of deep dive think pieces into the minds of rural Conservative/Trump voters and the MSM trying to deconstruct the motivations of coal miners in fly over states but you rarely see RWM doing a mirror version of any of that. I attribute it to the constant and desperate attempts of trying to find any reason as to why their colleagues, friends and or/family would vote for Donald Trump that isn't the actual reason: They're loving terrible people, they just didn't exhibit that shittiness to the desperate people in question because they happen to be a part of their accepted in-group. A lot of people - thankfully less and less - still engage in this self-deceit, which is one of the saddest things about America.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 22:41
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/JonahFurman/status/1598025610227781632?t=Ybtx1dBYaneFxTHezixrMQ&s=19 It really doesn't seem like Biden wants the railroad workers to get their 7 days of sick leave, the WH press release makes zero mention of the house bill to add this to the agreement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 22:45
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Leak them to a bunch of people probably, I think the bigger deal would be if those also get into the hands of state level prosecutors going after him but I don't know if that's impossible or already happened. If the House was going to do something to him they would've by now but a state prosecutor can get him for missed taxes or something. That's just a minority. You're describing that a minority of the union members approved the contracts. A significant minority is just a minority but you put a word that means big or important in front of it to make it not sound like a minority.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 22:47
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:I attribute it to the constant and desperate attempts of trying to find any reason as to why their colleagues, friends and or/family would vote for Donald Trump that isn't the actual reason: They're loving terrible people, they just didn't exhibit that shittiness to the desperate people in question because they happen to be a part of their accepted in-group. A lot of people - thankfully less and less - You should come to America and see firsthand the incredible amount of things that are sadder than that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 22:49
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Our entire democracy as it were is in fact set up to enshrine and empower a large minority. Which is why the fascists are even a threat instead of squealing from their powerless rural shitholes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 22:53
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:Amazing how much of politics is just this. This is not true in any way at all. The right spends extended periods of time viciously tearing each others throats out to get the most amount of power and control. Because, ultimately, they have a lovely ideology but a lot of support from Capitalism. Left wing ideas do not have billionaires to rain funding down on to particular voices to create chains of patronage, so all the squabbling and discussion is held in the open air.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 22:53
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ChadPergram/status/1598052547360854017?t=1yHKKR5CvsOw2Ljt7ghehA&s=19 It *really* doesn't seem like Biden wants railroad workers to get sick leave at this point
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 22:55
|
|
|
rscott posted:https://twitter.com/ChadPergram/status/1598052547360854017?t=1yHKKR5CvsOw2Ljt7ghehA&s=19
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 23:07
|
|
|
I'm sure I'll regret diving back into the fray again here, but for lack of what sounds like any real experience being a member of a union in a lot of the discussion going on here, I thought it might be important to dispel certain bad-faith misrepresentations of the union contract negotiation process having recently gone through the process myself. I am a card-carrying, dues-paying member of Communications Workers of America Local 1400. The workers at my company have representation through three CWA locals - 1400 , 13000, and 2336. Our contract was hailed as one of the most comprehensive contracts in the tech sector. quote:The three-year contract includes $700,000 in wage scale adjustments and standardizations and 3% annual wages increases. Other significant provisions establish a 40-hour work week; provide financial compensation for on-call, weekend and holiday work; offer remote work options with protections against surveillance tools; and increase the company’s commitment to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion initiatives. Bonterra also agreed to remain neutral if other employee groups want to join the union. The contract was ratified with an 84% acceptance rate across the locals. Each local held its own election; each local had a specific window in which to vote, and had a link to an ActionNetwork form to accept or reject the contract. If 100% of the members of 1400 vote to ratify the contract, this does not obligate the members of local 13000 or local 2336 to be subjected to the contract terms if enough of locals 13000 and 2336 vote the contract down and the contract does not pass the 50% threshold for ratification. This is how union contract negotiations work. I don't particularly care if anyone here thinks the process should work differently - this is the contract ratification process by which modern labor unions operate, whether you like it or not. If you don't like it, feel free to organize your workplace and petition your org (you would have to do this at the top level, in my example if I wanted to shift to a more US-Democratically electoral college system, I would need to petition the overarching CWA organization for this, not my local) to use a stupider vote system - good luck with that! If the vote fails to meet the 50% threshold across 100% of the voting membership, the contract is rejected. That's it. In the case of our contract, we would have entered into an 'impasse' state, where the company is allowed to enact any number of the policies it wants, with none of the concessions we demanded until the dispute was resolved. In the RR strike, this means that the already-authorized Dec 9 strike will remain authorized. Any attempt by the government - federal, state, or jurisdictional - to interfere with union negotiations is engaging in unionbreaking tactics - it does not matter how many different ways you try and slice the vote - the total of "yes" votes across all union locals MUST outweigh the total of "no" votes across all union locals. This is how it works.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 23:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:46 |
|
|
Byzantine posted:Which is why the fascists are even a threat instead of squealing from their powerless rural shitholes. I think there's a lot to unpack as to why they're a threat but it's no small part of it here at least. If it weren't the EC it'd be something else tho, big problem is business loves them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2022 23:09
|
|